My 688 Rocks!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sexy Heather
  • Start date Start date
A Reel Person said:
The thing I don't like about the DP-01 line, is that it's A-in/B-in architecture assigned to 2-tracks. There's no front end mixer in this design. Sometimes setups demand front end mixing to the recorder, and so DP-01 and similar unit's owners get an outboard mixer, which solves the problem, but it's no longer a self-contained solution, (i.e., Portastudio). In these units, mixing is seen as something you only do when you play back the tracks. I think that's wrong. Designs like this generally get the thumbs down from me, 'cept if you're going ultra-low end like with the Porta 02. :eek: ;)

The DP-01's moving design towards knob functions was good, but it's still menu driven at heart, and the knob section is hardly what I'd call a mixer. It's a great idea, but isn't fully implemented. It's a playback mixer only. I generally give a thumbs down to a menu driven system, anyway. YMMV.:eek: ;)

On the other hand, (f/i), the Fostex FD-8 has an 8x2 analog mixer section that records to a 16/44.1k digital hard disc, up to 2-tracks simul (or 8-simul with ADAT I/O). With this design, you may do input-side mixing down to disc while recording, and output-side mixing at mixdown. It's an older but worthy design, & internal hard disc is optional. It's menu driven, but it's tolerable because the mixer section is fully implemented, (in that cheapie Fostex way). :eek: ;)

Units that record only up to 2-tracks simultaneously are inherently limiting. Put that together with a straight A/B raw input, and what do you have? The DP-01 and the Porta 02. :eek: ;)

When the DP-01 does flexible 8-input mixing to 8-simul recording,... call me. :eek: ;)

Of course, the 688 has a fully implemented 8x8 recording mixer, with smart digital driven menu settings for patching and routing. You have a lot with the 688. :rolleyes: :cool:
Click to expand...

I generally agree with you on the DP-01 range, Dave, but I did get a DP-01FX/CD because it's pros outweigh it's cons for the price. A 2488 would have been a better choice, but since I have a 688, a 564 and a 424, I elected to go with the DP-01FX/CD and I don't regret it. I still prefer my 688 to all them, however. I still think there's a lot of life left in the cassette format for those who have an open mind and are not totally brainwashed by the anti-analog crowd. I think both analog and digital are viable, rather like film and digital photography.
 
Anyway, back to my 688. It was the summer of 1989 when I first saw an ad for the machine in Guitar Player, shortly after NAMM. The 688 had not shipped and was not yet available. At the time, I was heavily recording with my trusty PortaOne, which served me well for many years and was my intro into multi-track recording. There was a contest in that issue of GP to win a 688, so I of course entered it. I didn't win. About a year later, in the late summer of 1990, I finally saw a 644 (the four track version of the 688) at Heart Of Texas Music here in Austin. I was impressed right off the bat. They didn't yet have a 688 in stock, so I asked the sales rep how much the 688 would be and how long it would take to get. He quoted me prices and and gave me several brochures on the 688 and 644 (which I still have!). I knew I wanted the 688 and went back on 9/8/90 and ordered and paid for my 688. It took nearly a month, but my 688 came in on 10/2/90. I was thrilled and raced to the store to pick it up. I couldn't wait to get home and start using it, which is exactly what I did. Man, I remember it like it was just yesterday. The audio quality and features were really impressive (they still are) and I spent every free minute pouring over the manual. I recorded my first serious band demo with the 688 in November-December 1990, and most recently I used it for one just last year. Time went on, and I added a 424 (much easier to transport), a 564 (my entry into digital recording) and most recently, a DP-01FX/CD. I've loved all the Tascam recorders I've had, but none more so than my 688. Last weekend, I cleaned/demagnetized it, got some new cassettes, plugged in one of my Telecasters and there it was, that same feeling I got when I first used it all those years ago. I know there's bigger and better gear, but I'll always have a special place in my heart for my 688. I'll never forget the feeling of easily and successfully actualizing possibilities that I once dreamed of when I first used it. It was a revelation for me.
 
I wanted a 688 after I saw one a couple of years ago. Somebody bought it a few minutes before I got back to it. I bought a 488 instead. Very cool unit. Same as the 688 without midi. :)
 
Okay, please forgive me for being a newb and asking a dumb question. I've got a 424 mkii and love it. 4 tracks on cassette........cool. Now, how in the hell do you get 8 tracks on a cassette? Or is there something else I'm missing? The 688 looks awesome, but huge. If I had the money and the space, I'd probably have one. ;)
 
The staggered design of tape heads in the 688 (and the 488, 488 mk II and 238) make eight tracks on cassette possible. The sound quality is surprisingly great, given the inherent sonic limitations of the cassette medium. The 688 weighs 39 pounds, so it's not as huge as one might think. By today's standards, sure, but compared with the Studio 8 388 of the mid '80s which weighs in at 80 pounds, it's not that heavy. The 688 has a 20-channel input mixer, advanced MIDI functionality (hence the Midistudio name) and a 99 scene LCD display for mixer routing and a lot more.
 
Last edited:
I just downloaded and read the very same white paper on the head design myself. One thing that I find interesting is how advanced the design was for the time. It seems like a real feat of engineering, squeezing all those tracks onto a cassette! By 1989, when the 688 appeared, cassettes were nearly 25 years old, and for such an elaborate machine to be designed around the cassette format always seemed amazing to me. The other thing I have learned from my Web research on the 688 is how well it has been and still is regarded by so many. Makes me even more glad that I own one!
 
heather,

since you're the 688 queen I would reaally like to hear some stuff you recorded on the 688. Could you post some clips?? Or anybody else who made a 688 recording?? Mine are on my myspace below..(Belly Button/Keep on walkin')
Let's share the sound of the 688 in this thread, before it's dead...
 
Bobby Darko said:
heather,

since you're the 688 queen I would reaally like to hear some stuff you recorded on the 688. Could you post some clips?? Or anybody else who made a 688 recording?? Mine are on my myspace below..(Belly Button/Keep on walkin')
Let's share the sound of the 688 in this thread, before it's dead...
Click to expand...

Bobby, I'll try to get something up soon and I'll post a link here.
 
I figured with tracks so narrow that there would be a chance of bleeding over into another track or the sound quality would be a little less than desirable. That's what I get for thinking! :p
 
Well, the design of the 688 must have required enormous technical obstacles be overcome, to get all eight tracks on there with the space limitations AND still have the machine sound good as it does. I remember thinking it was truly a real feat of development at the time. Tascam took the cassette multi-tracker way farther than anyone with the 688 (and to a lesser extent, the 488 and 488mkII). I remember when the 688 stopped being made in late '94 and in early '95 Tascam unveiled the 424mkII and the 488mkII. I was kinda disppointed, as I thought there would certainly be a 688mkII, as well. I bet that would have been cool and I bet there were plans for one at some point.
 
wow yes, that's a very interesting thought. We should e-mail Tascam about it. Maybe they can build a few 688 mkII's for us!!

-extra phantom power for 8 channels
-solo buttons
-?

By the way Heather, do you bounce a lot on the 688? I can't quite figure out how to do it well, especially with the panning while boucing...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top